Is Canada Guilty of War Crimes?

On November 9th, investigative journalist and human rights activist, John McNamer sent a request to the International Criminal Court to investigate Canada’s complicity in war crimes. McNamer argues that Canada has “actively and intentionally failed to comply with legal obligations under The Convention against Torture and the Rome Statue” (page 1). McNamer’s submissions to the ICC include that Canada has transferred detainees to the United States and Afghanistan with full knowledge that the detainees would be in extreme danger of torture and that Canada uses and shares intelligence likely obtained through torture. McNamer provides over 250 documents in support of his allegations.

In order for the ICC to have jurisdiction to investigate Canadians, Canada must be unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out the investigation or prosecution. McNamer contends Canada is unwilling. As Canada is a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC Prosecutor has the power to initiate investigation proprio motu. There must be a reasonable basis on which to proceed.

It has also been reported that a group of Egyptian lawyers have submitted a complaint to the ICC accusing President Barack Obama of being an accessory to the crimes against humanity committed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. However, unlike Canada, the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. The only way the ICC could acquire jurisdiction to investigate President Obama is through a referral by the United Nations Security Council and the United States is one of five countries with veto power.

8 Commentson "Is Canada Guilty of War Crimes?"

John McNamer has been using my artwork for his artcle without my permission. See The Sri Lanka Guardian. Not only is this illegal and against my copy right….but I also adamantly disagree with his stance. I literally returned from Afghanistan yesterday (Nov. 18, 2013) where I was embedded with the Canadian Forces. I am trying to contact him. My artwork is NOT to be used without my permission. I DO NOT permit Mr. McNamer to use my artwork ever. McNamer should respect the rights of artists.
Silvia Pecota

For the record, I have had no interaction whatsoever with the Sri Lanka Guardian and gave them no permission to do anything. I have not provided any artwork by anyone to the Sri Lanka Guardian, nor to any other media outlet. I have never before even seen the artwork Silvia Pecota says is copy righted.

” I have had no interaction whatsoever with the Sri Lanka Guardian and gave them no permission to do anything.”
Does this also mean Mr. McNamer did not submit said article to the Sri Lanka Guardian?
I personally take offence to Mr. McNamer’s choice of words… Ms. Pecota’s artwork IS her copyright, and your suggestion that this is merely her opinion is rude, dismissive and improper.
“Dear Silvia Pecota:
…I find it necessary to ask you for an immediate retraction and apology for the comments about me as attributed to you in the November 19, 2013, CCLA Rights Watch…”
A better response would be for Mr. McNamer to drop the axe he is grinding for a moment and follow up with the Sri Lankan Guardian personally to remedy this problem. They are not available to contact through normal internet channels, and at the end of the day, his article on war crimes is still illustrated by artwork that is meant as a tribute to fallen heroes.
Mr. McNamer, although you aren’t familiar with Ms. Pecota’s artwork, she is a renowned Canadian artist. Your article falls flat due to the gross inconsistency of stolen… and inappropriate subject matter in regards to illustration. Your ignorant attitude and responses (not all shown here) give me pause to consider whether your article is accurate, or if you’re just angry and self-absorbed. Stand behind your work and correct it instead of bullying the artist for a retraction.
Sincerely,
Judie Claeys

why has my response to Mr. McNamer’s request for an apology removed?
I assumed that “Civil Liberties” permitted the “liberty” to defend how my artwork is used…..and misused…and not “edited”. How ironic.

Here it is, and let’s see how long it takes for it to be removed again.
“Dear Silvia Pecota:
As you have not replied to my email below, I find it necessary to ask you for an immediate retraction and apology for the comments about me as attributed to you in the November 19, 2013, CCLA Rights Watch.
If you will read my follow-up comment to Rights Watch (as forwarded below), you will see that the allegations that I have used your artwork for an article in the Sri Lanka Guardian and therefore acted illegally are completely untrue: “For the record, I have had no interaction whatsoever with the Sri Lanka Guardian and gave them no permission to do anything. I have not provided any artwork by anyone to the Sri Lanka Guardian, nor to any other media outlet. I have never before even seen the artwork Silvia Pecota says is copy righted.”
In other words, I wish to clearly convey to you that I have not published your artwork or caused your artwork to be published by anyone, anywhere, nor do I have any interest or intention to do so.
If you are not the author of these comments, please inform me immediately, for I find the publication of these comments attributed to you to be damaging to my professional reputation as a journalist. Anyone is welcome to disagree with my stance, but not to damage my reputation with untrue comments published in the public realm.
If you are the author of these comments and wish to make amends for this error, I request that you immediately submit another comment to be attached to the same story at the CCLA Rights Watch with a complete retraction and an apology, and inform me by email at jhnmcnamer@yahoo.cahttp://www.ccla.org/rightswatch/2013/11/12/is-canada-guilty-of-war-crimes/
If you have been the author of similar untrue comments about me that have been published elsewhere, I request that similar amends be performed in each such instance and that I also be informed.
Sincerely, John McNamer”

When an artist’s work is used as the “hook” for an article, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the author was at least aware of it.
One concludes that a conciliatory attitude by the author toward the author’s objection would be expected, assuming he objects to his work being used without permission.
If a commemorative work of art was used to head an article in which I was critical of the same people, I would be offended, as should be the author of this article.